To not let dd have the HVP vaccination?

[DogGoneMad]

Dh and I really disagree on this.

It's just the raw data that you keep quoting though - not anything else from the report other than the fact that after 'investigation' the deaths were 'unlikely' to be connected. There were 740 other serious events reported though (in 2008 - there are even more now).

I don't want to detract at all from concerns about immediate adverse effects, but I'm much, much, much more concerned about very long-term potential effects, which won't be known about for a decade or so.

Bb do you refuse to acknowledge that looking at a patients medical records and autopsy record along with the initial report is an investigation?

I don't think it's a full investigation, no - it's not looking at the patient, if still alive, it's only looking at an autopsy if there is one, it's not requiring an autopsy if the patient died, it's not a pro-active investigation at all.

Which is implied by "every adverse event is investigated".

Saying someone died of heart failure is like saying they died of death.

I didnt ask if you thought is was a full investigation. Which implies you do agree that this is some level of investigation rather than non at all. I have never posted that every adverse event was investigated. One again, you are missing words when you quote me.
I said that for these vaccines all serious and fatal adverse reports were investigated. I have proved this to be true.

I think you are confusing heart failure with cardiac arrest
classifications of heart failure Heart failure is a chronic disease and would not suggest an acute event when recorded on a patients death certificate.

Cardiac arrest would be the cessation of life in patients and ultimately the final cause of death but in itself is not a recordable cause of death on a death certificate as it is always precipitated by something else.

I haven't misquoted you at all Pims, what rot.

"I have proved this to be true." No - you've said it a lot. There's a difference.

"I didn't ask if you thought this was a full investigation" Ok then - no I don't think it's any kind of a worthwhile investigation. I'm very happy to say that. All you are saying is "somebody qualified will read the report". The alternative is "somebody unqualified will read the report" or "no one will read the report". Bare minimum? possibly less than the bare minimum? You are happy this is better than nothing.

You might be, but that's because you have a lot of faith in vaccines and the vaccine agenda. It's plainly very little better than nothing. Given the safety record of vaccines I think rather more is needed.

So, does this amount to "all serious adverse event reports are investigated"? I think we can say with all confidence that it isn't. They will only "investigate" if patterns are observed like wot I said.

Bb you keep changing your mind as to weather you acknowledge that more than the adverse event reports have for this vaccine been reviewed for serious and fatal reports. Patients medical records and autopsy record along with the initial report is reviewed. That is more than just reading the report. By definition, this is an investigation and I have clearly demonstrated that this has taken place with the findings and given contemporaneous and credible references to support this.

You have just consistently disagreed. Im afraid that doesn't make you right

Er no I don't. I think I know what I've said. It's right there above this post. And no, it's not an investigation. If there isn't an autopsy report, no autopsy is required. The patient is not examined. And so on and so forth.

Pims you've copied so much of what I've said and tried to turn it back. If I say stick to the topic, you say it five posts later. If I say no personal abuse, you - astoundingly - say it a few pages later when your own collusion with horrid posts is well forgotten. If I say, repeating yourself doesn't make you right, you say it afterwards.

Once you told someone to get a sense of humour about the abuse and at the same time said "stick to the topic"!

BB there will always be an autopsy/post mortem report by law if the patient has been a sudden death or if the consultant/attending physician is unable to say with certainty what the cause of death was.

In cases like this, the medical records and casenotes will give a vast amount of information.

As someone who regularly investigates and reviews serious incidents in medicine I can say this with absolute certainty

Considering the age group involved in the HPV vaccination I would say the likelihood of a death going unexamined would be slim.

Isn't there a danger of serotype replacement with this vaccine? I know right now that the 2 strains it protects against cause 70% of cervical Ca but with mass immunisation that could change. Kind of like what happened/is happening with the PCV vaccine. I don't have a teen right now but that would be my main concern.

Arinita, yes, apparently there is a study being carried out into that at the moment.

What is serotype replacement?

And I'm afraid I don't know what the PCV vaccine is either.

"We enter Yellow Card reports onto a specialised database that allows rapid processing and analysis of the reports. Since the Yellow Card Scheme was set up in 1964, over 600,000 UK Yellow Cards have been received."

Fed into a computer in the UK. Patterns are looked for - not individual cases investigated.

Which is why you get cases like Robert Fletcher, from Cheshire, paid 90,000 at the age of eighteen for a vaccine injury at the age of 13 months which left him brain damaged, with frequent epileptic fits, unable to talk, stand unaided or feed himself.
It took seventeen years. Do you defend that as "not perfect but good enough"? I'd like to see you try. Do you think his is the only such case?

Harry Clark - died within hours of vaccination. But he'd demonstrated no reaction to the vaccination, apparently, the court heard. No connection established: mother arrested and jailed: later released and committed suicide. A great system.

Not sure if anyone is still interested, www.asccp.org/PracticeManagement/HPV/NaturalHistoryofHPV/tabid/5962/Default.aspx this is quite a recent potted info about HPV from US association for colposcopy and cytology.

Were there any other questions about screening etc that I haven't remember, I can see things have moved on a bit.

Thanks for the link to that website, Leonie. It's that kind of thing I find really invaluable.

I've printed out your link, Bela, so I can read with care...

LeonieDelt.

Actually, I've just read the paper Bela linked to, which is amazingly informative. That's going in the file. Thank you both so much.

Another article that lacks credibility and scientific evidence to support.

In developing countries, the trick would be actually helping women to achieve screening targets and attending for follow up. Given that fatality from Cervical cancer is significantly higher in developing countries, I think it highlights the need for better vaccination and access to screening.

PIMS, if you read the article then you would see that the treatment was developed specifically because they realise that the practices in developed countries aren't suitable. These people are travelling for hours to get to clinics and the cells can be identified and treated in one visit. Why are you being so dismissive? It is obviously working in those countries.